- W & M: How the Trump tax cuts were good for the economy and why allowing some provisions to expire would be bad.
- How much would you pay per year to combat global warming? R: $134 D: $633 All: $371
- Percent who would pay nothing: R: 53% D: 17% All: 35%
- At a New York City fast food restaurant, the cashier is 8,000 miles away in the Philippines and costs $1 an hour.
- Over the last 13 months, more than 20 million people were disenrolled from Medicaid. So, what happened to the uninsured rate? It hasn’t budged. Explanations.
- Milei is succeeding in Argentina.
I replied to the Medicaid Unwinding: You should have said that they already had employer-sponsored insurance, and they were unaware that the schmuck taxpayers were continuing to pay Centene and the other corrupt Medicaid companies untold billions. You falsely make it sound like when their Medicaid ended, they got employer insurance.
Willing to pay to reduce global warming…
My willingness to pay is dependent on the area of investment. I’m willing to pay for thicker insulation, a more efficient HVAC, a more efficient engine, planting trees that I can see. I am not too keen on higher taxes on gasoline, higher prices for electric cars, higher prices to discourage consumption,
I’ll assume that investing in my own personal energy efficiency doesn’t count as “paying to reduce global warming,” insofar as it saves me money rather than costing something.
As for the rest, my willingness is zero so long as I’m forced to pay to subsidize other peoples’ _increased_ consumption. Most of the tax expenditures that go toward subsidizing homeownership scale with the size and cost of the property being subsidized, and therefore favor the larger ones. Using tax dollars to outfit these mini-mansions with solar panels and batteries is merely a further insult to taxpayers.